[] On Behalf Of Jason Resch
Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 11:38 PM
Subject: Re: Many-worlds vs. Many-Minds



On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 8:07 PM, rmiller <> wrote:

To me, the Many-Minds interpretation requires significant changes in frames
of reference.  Suppose you view a particular world out of many as a
2-dimensional surface.  Layers of surfaces comprise the local environment of
a particular section of Many Worlds.  Now think of a behavior pattern as a
set of elements and interactions between elements.  Each of the many-worlds
is associated with a "snapshot" of your individual behavior pattern unique
to that world.  But suppose there are similarities between your behavior
patterns in worlds A B and C-that set of similar configurations forms what
can be described as a fibre bundle through multiple surfaces.  If so, this
may suggest that at some level consciousness experiences more than one world
"surface" at a time.   If the ratio of interactions to elements decreases
(you enter a darkened room) then the similarities in the behavior system
config should result in an increase in the "depth" of the many world
surfaces.  Increase the ratio of interactions to elements and the complexity
of your behavior set increases-linking you to a particular world "surface."
It would seem that, like relativity, the frame of reference is not
absolute-and in fact changes as rapidly as perception changes.   From others
inhabiting the single world surface, it would appear that the behavior
system is changing without cause; but if we could somehow view the entire
group of world surfaces associated with the core group of a particular
behavioral system configuration, then we would be more likely to understand
the "reasons" for the behavior.  Unfortunately, any single nervous system
has any number of configurations associated with multiple world layers---and
anyone attempting to perceive it has their own particular sets of
configurations (and world layers.)  The best we can do is arrive at a
general consensus of what is perceived and agree to label that the local
shared reality.  The Copenhagen theorists infamously suggested that nothing
exists unless it is perceived (measured)-and as far as it goes, that would
be absolutely true.  One cannot perceive what doesn't exist in that world
layer.  But if the perception process naturally involved multiple world
layers, then the Copenhagen Interpretation would be true, but trivially so
(as Hawking said about Many Worlds.)   David Deutsch claims we all inhabit
multiple worlds, but can't communicate between the worlds.  I think Many
Minds, Fibre Bundle topology, and Neodissociationist (Hilgardian) psychology
will prove him wrong.




I am nearly done reading the Fabric of Reality.  One thing which isn't clear
to me after reading it is how computation or consciousness work if we are
all simply unconnected snapshots, without any implicit ordering or
connections between any two snapshots, or without the flow of information or
causal relationships between such snapshots.  The concept of objective
snapshots of universes also seems to conflict with the spacetime concept in
relativity, which he says is only useful as an approximation.  Has this been
established or is it a theory of Deutsch's?




He seems (to me, anyway) unclear, or if he knows, he hasn't conveyed the
concept in a way I can understand.  From what I've read, the Multiverse is
probably something like a multidimensional Higgs Space with individual (and
intersecting) "worlds" existing as fleeting interactions between basic (and
yet undiscovered) subunits.   It might be envisioned topologically as a
near-infinite number of ephemeral, intersecting manifolds that change over
time.  Certainly there's a substructure that involves time. Cramer's
Transactional theory includes particles that travel from the future to the
past, and there are a few things about quantum mechanics-the Delayed Choice
Experiment comes to mind-that suggests the future may influence the past-or
some version of it.   German physicist Helmut Schmidt once decided to
(effectively) expand Bohr's Copenhagen theorem to real-life experiments.  As
a result, he was able to show with scientific probability (p <0.05) that a
group of students can "change the past."  It's commonly known as the
retrocausality experiments and he took a lot of heat for them.  In 1995 I
asked him what he thought the results meant:  Did causality run in reverse,
or was it a matter of a group of 25 students "choosing" the universe they
wanted to be in?  His answer: probably the latter.   But if you're a fan of
Richard Feinman, you may conclude that this is evidence that causality does
indeed run in reverse---you can affect the past (or a version of it.)   Once
Cramer gets his laser experiment to work, we'll be that much closer to
knowing the answer.   


As for the role of consciousness in all of this, I believe some answers have
already been found-back in 1978 when Stanford Clinical Psychologist Ernest
R. Hilgard discovered the Hidden Observer phenomenon.  Seems there's an
"executive function" in each of us that comes to the fore only under
extremely deep (60+) hypnosis.  His book on the subject, "Divided
Consciousness" is fascinating reading.  Someone familiar with Many Worlds
theory will come away with the impression that there evolved as a mechanism
to keep track of the local many-world space we inhabit.




You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to